metal monkey experiment

Harry Harlow Theory & Rhesus Monkey Experiments in Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Harlow (1958 wanted to study the mechanisms by which newborn rhesus monkeys bond with their mothers.

These infants depended highly on their mothers for nutrition, protection, comfort, and socialization.  What, exactly, though, was the basis of the bond?

The learning theory of attachment suggests that an infant would form an attachment with a carer who provides food. In contrast, Harlow explained that attachment develops due to the mother providing “tactile comfort,” suggesting that infants have an innate (biological) need to touch and cling to something for emotional comfort.

Harry Harlow did a number of studies on attachment in rhesus monkeys during the 1950’s and 1960″s.  His experiments took several forms:

Cloth Mother vs. Wire Mother Experiment

Experiment 1.

Harlow (1958) separated infant monkeys from their mothers immediately after birth and placed in cages with access to two surrogate mothers, one made of wire and one covered in soft terry toweling cloth.

In the first group, the terrycloth mother provided no food, while the wire mother did, in the form of an attached baby bottle containing milk.

Both groups of monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother (even if she had no milk).  The infant would only go to the wire mother when hungry. Once fed it would return to the cloth mother for most of the day.  If a frightening object was placed in the cage the infant took refuge with the cloth mother (its safe base).

This surrogate was more effective in decreasing the youngster’s fear.  The infant would explore more when the cloth mother was present.

This supports the evolutionary theory of attachment , in that the sensitive response and security of the caregiver are important (as opposed to the provision of food).

Experiment 2

Harlow (1958) modified his experiment and separated the infants into two groups: the terrycloth mother which provided no food, or the wire mother which did.

All the monkeys drank equal amounts and grew physically at the same rate. But the similarities ended there. Monkeys who had soft, tactile contact with their terry cloth mothers behaved quite differently than monkeys whose mothers were made out of hard wire.

The behavioral differences that Harlow observed between the monkeys who had grown up with surrogate mothers and those with normal mothers were;

• They were much more timid.
• They didn’t know how to act with other monkeys.
• They were easily bullied and wouldn’t stand up for themselves.
• They had difficulty with mating.
• The females were inadequate mothers.

These behaviors were observed only in the monkeys left with the surrogate mothers for more than 90 days.

For those left less than 90 days, the effects could be reversed if placed in a normal environment where they could form attachments.

Rhesus Monkeys Reared in Isolation

Harlow (1965) took babies and isolated them from birth. They had no contact with each other or anybody else.

He kept some this way for three months, some for six, some for nine and some for the first year of their lives. He then put them back with other monkeys to see what effect their failure to form attachment had on behavior.

The results showed the monkeys engaged in bizarre behavior, such as clutching their own bodies and rocking compulsively. They were then placed back in the company of other monkeys.

To start with the babies were scared of the other monkeys, and then became very aggressive towards them. They were also unable to communicate or socialize with other monkeys. The other monkeys bullied them. They indulged in self-mutilation, tearing hair out, scratching, and biting their own arms and legs.<!–

In addition, Harlow created a state of anxiety in female monkeys which had implications once they became parents. Such monkeys became so neurotic that they smashed their infant’s face into the floor and rubbed it back and forth.

Harlow concluded that privation (i.e., never forming an attachment bond) is permanently damaging (to monkeys).

The extent of the abnormal behavior reflected the length of the isolation. Those kept in isolation for three months were the least affected, but those in isolation for a year never recovered from the effects of privation.

Conclusions

Studies of monkeys raised with artificial mothers suggest that mother-infant emotional bonds result primarily from mothers providing infants with comfort and tactile contact, rather than just fulfilling basic needs like food.

Harlow concluded that for a monkey to develop normally s/he must have some interaction with an object to which they can cling during the first months of life (critical period).

Clinging is a natural response – in times of stress the monkey runs to the object to which it normally clings as if the clinging decreases the stress.

He also concluded that early maternal deprivation leads to emotional damage but that its impact could be reversed in monkeys if an attachment was made before the end of the critical period .

However, if maternal deprivation lasted after the end of the critical period, then no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the emotional damage that had already occurred.

Harlow found, therefore, that it was social deprivation rather than maternal deprivation that the young monkeys were suffering from.

When he brought some other infant monkeys up on their own, but with 20 minutes a day in a playroom with three other monkeys, he found they grew up to be quite normal emotionally and socially.

The Impact of Harlow’s Research

Harlow’s research has helped social workers to understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse such as a lack of comfort (and so intervene to prevent it).

Using animals to study attachment can benefit children who are most at risk in society and can also have later economic implications, as those children are more likely to grow up to be productive members of society.

Ethics of Harlow’s Study

Harlow’s work has been criticized.  His experiments have been seen as unnecessarily cruel (unethical) and of limited value in attempting to understand the effects of deprivation on human infants.

It was clear that the monkeys in this study suffered from emotional harm from being reared in isolation.  This was evident when the monkeys were placed with a normal monkey (reared by a mother), they sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear and depression.

Harlow’s experiment is sometimes justified as providing a valuable insight into the development of attachment and social behavior. At the time of the research, there was a dominant belief that attachment was related to physical (i.e., food) rather than emotional care.

It could be argued that the benefits of the research outweigh the costs (the suffering of the animals).  For example, the research influenced the theoretical work of John Bowlby , the most important psychologist in attachment theory.

It could also be seen as vital in convincing people about the importance of emotional care in hospitals, children’s homes, and daycare.

Harlow, H. F., Dodsworth, R. O., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). Total social isolation in monkeys . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 54 (1), 90.

Harlow, H. F. & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys . Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102 ,501 -509.

Harlow’s Classic Studies Revealed the Importance of Maternal Contact

• Child Development
• Cognitive Psychology
• Infant Development
• Social Interaction
• Social Isolation
• Social Psychology

Harry Harlow’s empirical work with primates is now considered a “classic” in behavioral science, revolutionizing our understanding of the role that social relationships play in early development. In the 1950s and 60s, psychological research in the United States was dominated by behaviorists and psychoanalysts, who supported the view that babies became attached to their mothers because they provided food. Harlow and other social and cognitive psychologists argued that this perspective overlooked the importance of comfort, companionship, and love in promoting healthy development.

Using methods of isolation and maternal deprivation, Harlow showed the impact of contact comfort on primate development. Infant rhesus monkeys were taken away from their mothers and raised in a laboratory setting, with some infants placed in separate cages away from peers. In social isolation, the monkeys showed disturbed behavior, staring blankly, circling their cages, and engaging in self-mutilation. When the isolated infants were re-introduced to the group, they were unsure of how to interact — many stayed separate from the group, and some even died after refusing to eat.

Even without complete isolation, the infant monkeys raised without mothers developed social deficits, showing reclusive tendencies and clinging to their cloth diapers. Harlow was interested in the infants’ attachment to the cloth diapers, speculating that the soft material may simulate the comfort provided by a mother’s touch. Based on this observation, Harlow designed his now-famous surrogate mother experiment.

In this study, Harlow took infant monkeys from their biological mothers and gave them two inanimate surrogate mothers: one was a simple construction of wire and wood, and the second was covered in foam rubber and soft terry cloth. The infants were assigned to one of two conditions. In the first, the wire mother had a milk bottle and the cloth mother did not; in the second, the cloth mother had the food while the wire mother had none.

In both conditions, Harlow found that the infant monkeys spent significantly more time with the terry cloth mother than they did with the wire mother. When only the wire mother had food, the babies came to the wire mother to feed and immediately returned to cling to the cloth surrogate.

Harlow’s work showed that infants also turned to inanimate surrogate mothers for comfort when they were faced with new and scary situations. When placed in a novel environment with a surrogate mother, infant monkeys would explore the area, run back to the surrogate mother when startled, and then venture out to explore again. Without a surrogate mother, the infants were paralyzed with fear, huddled in a ball sucking their thumbs. If an alarming noise-making toy was placed in the cage, an infant with a surrogate mother present would explore and attack the toy; without a surrogate mother, the infant would cower in fear.

Together, these studies produced groundbreaking empirical evidence for the primacy of the parent-child attachment relationship and the importance of maternal touch in infant development. More than 70 years later, Harlow’s discoveries continue to inform the scientific understanding of the fundamental building blocks of human behavior.

Harlow H. F., Dodsworth R. O., & Harlow M. K. (1965). Total social isolation in monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC285801/pdf/pnas00159-0105.pdf

Suomi, S. J., & Leroy, H. A. (1982). In memoriam: Harry F. Harlow (1905–1981). American Journal of Primatology, 2 , 319–342. doi:10.1002/ajp.1350020402

Tavris, C. A. (2014). Teaching contentious classics. The Association for Psychological Science . Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/teaching-contentious-classics

Loved the simplicity of article but wanted to Apa cite it but didn’t see a name who wrote it

typed a partial comment and was disrupted and never got around to sending it. I tried to relocate it on my computer, but was not able. Could have been my thoughts. As a substitute teacher I see the results of giving a child a phone rather than giving a child love and all that goes with it. I see the predictions of Harry Harlow have come to pass. No absolutes, no positive examples, no investment of time, just looking for the allusive moment of quality time, that requires an investment TIME to be there for that moment in time. Any way I’m probably not the one you’re looking for.

The above summary fails to address any critique of Harlow’s legacy. Nothing about use of Harlow’s “pit of despair,” or his “rape rack” to use his own term? Nothing about beginning “his harsher isolation and depression experiments while “corrosively depressed” and “stumbling around drunk”? No concern about any possibility of sadism as “science”? No question of “how much suffering is justified by the imperatives of science”? For starters, see S. Hansen’s 11/13/2002 salon.com review of Deborah Blum’s Love at Goon Park, or the essay on Harlow in psychologist Loren Slater’s book, Opening Skinner’s Box.

Gigi, the sole reason for the experiment was not to root out sadism, it was to explain the need for attachment. Sorry about the special feelings you have for animals. It is a good point you let us see, you can now use that opportunity to show us sadism in regards to the research they made. I will search that article you point out to see what that author had to say about sadism.

I read these these experiments when they were published in the Scientific American journals.

I find he article a good review of the original work.

I worked in Harlow’s lab as as an undergraduate student in 1951/52. What I learned from this experience is the value of facts and verified statements about animal behavior. As a 20 year old kid discharged from the army, I was severely reprimanded for stating that a monkey had bit me in anger when I slapped its paw for trying to steal reasons out of lab coat. I was bitten but I invented the reason. Our work was to flesh out the phylo-genetic scale. Along with just learning studies, with white rats as well.

And what did you discover?

Wow that’s amazing you worked in the lab, I think so just starting out in psychology and my first lesson was Harlow. It’s was very interesting learning about him, my only thought was the monkeys have to admit but that was done in those days. Thanks Sue

I agree that in this day and age, we would criticize this treatment. I have no doubt much of it still goes on, people still eat animals. That was a different time, we learn from the past so that we do not repeat it. But to be angry about the past or that someone could find the good research that was deemed from it is histrionic and a waste of positive energy.

Are you people insane? “I agree that in this day and age, we would criticize this treatment” I was raised in exactly in accord with Harlow’s experiments, denied human contact almost since birth. And you APPROVE of this?! “That was a different time, we learn from the past so that we do not repeat it.” Oh, you know so little. Look up “secure confinement” and consider what children face every day of their lives.

I agree with Harry’s theory.

I also find it sadistic or at least totally lacking in sensitivity and compassion to have torn these baby monkeys from their mothers to learn what.That they prefer warmth to a hard screen even when food is involved? It is this kind of thinking that leads to the willingness of politicians to separate families, putting children in cages so that they will be less likely to come to America for help. Truly sadistic!

I think we need like a chat forum for discussion about these issues honestly. I’d love to debate about this stuff actually and am wondering whether any means is sufficient. In regards to the actual experiment, Im not going to get my beliefs on ethical treatment mixed up and it did produce significant findings. I’m more upset about the actual findings themselves. It could also be because I see some very loose correlation between them and my life unfortunately. The published paper was definitely worth the read and I wish I didn’t.

I think the whole point is that the experiments show why politicians should NOT separate families etc.. it’s difficult to prove the effects of cruelty without being cruel. The alarming thing is how little has been learned from the sacrifice. I know a young woman with learning difficulties, abandonment issues and probable RAD who is in care. She has created a fantasy world with cuddly toys. She is chastised for this by her ‘carers’ who confiscate them and make her feel guilty about her self. I am currently composing a letter for social services to intervene. I intend enclosing the above article. Everyone who works in care should be made to read it!

I studied psychology as an undergrad several years ago, and of the cognitive development experiments that made it into academic text, Harlow’s was one that has always stuck in my mind. To refer to the outcomes and substantiated findings of studies such as these, without acknowledging the cruelty perpetuated in carrying them out, might be impossible. The two go hand in hand, and that’s the point. But years later, can we say the ends justified the means? Yes…and no. Studies such as this one, were done years ago, perhaps in a time with very different regulations; however, the findings are none the less very substantial. And, I personally believe could, and should, be referred to in the training of a variety of service and caregiver professions, as this last comment suggests. There is still much to be learned in Behavioral science area of study, but as a society in need of great change as a whole, we should be working to figure out how we can capitalize on the knowledge gained from past studies such as this one…as opposed to focusing solely on the conditions in which they were done in. That’s not to allow our emotions to diminish the importance of the findings, without putting them to good use in our everyday lives. The end goal being to make a positive difference in society moving forward.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Memory Makes It Hard to Fight Pandemics. But We Can Always Strive to Remember Lessons Learned

A multidisciplinary panel explored how psychological science might contribute to understanding digital contact tracing, maximizing its capabilities in the future and otherwise improving preparedness for future pandemics.  

Careers Up Close: Andy DeSoto on Optimism, Self-Awareness, and the Gratifying Work of Science Advocacy 

Cognitive psychologist Andy DeSoto was a key member of the APS staff for 7 years and leaves a legacy that includes a highly impactful government relations and policy program.

Depression May Cause Us to View Success as an Exception to the Rule 

Researchers have started to link the negative outlook brought about by depression to an impaired ability to update expectations.  

Privacy Overview

Harlow’s Monkey Experiments: 3 Findings About Attachment

When that need is met, the infant develops a secure attachment style; however, when that need is not met, the infant can develop an attachment disorder.

In this post, we’ll briefly explore attachment theory by looking at Harlow’s monkey experiments and how those findings relate to human behavior and attachment styles. We’ll also look at some of the broader research that resulted from Harlow’s experiments.

Before we begin, I have to warn you that Harlow’s experiments are distressing and can be upsetting. Nowadays, his experiments are considered unethical and would most likely not satisfy the requirements of an ethical board. However, knowing this, the findings of his research do provide insight into the important mammalian bond that exists between infant and parent.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

This Article Contains:

Harlow’s experiments: a brief summary, three fascinating findings & their implications, its connection to love and attachment theory, follow-up and related experiments, criticisms of harlow’s experiments, ethical considerations of harlow’s experiments, relevant positivepsychology.com resources, a take-home message.

Harry Harlow was trained as a psychologist, and in 1930 he was employed at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His areas of expertise were in infant–caregiver relationships, infant dependency and infant needs, and social deprivation and isolation. He is also well known for his research using rhesus monkeys.

Maternal surrogates: Food versus comfort

For his experiments, Harlow (1958) separated infant rhesus monkeys from their mothers. He then constructed two surrogate ‘mothers’ for the infants: one surrogate made out of metal but that provided milk through an artificial nipple, the other surrogate covered in soft, fluffy material but that didn’t offer food.

The first surrogate delivered food but provided no comfort; the second did not deliver food, but the rhesus infants were able to cuddle with it.

When both surrogates were placed in the infants’ cages, Harlow found the surrogates satisfied different needs of the rhesus infants. The wire surrogate satisfied the infants’ primary need for food. However, when Harlow made a loud noise to frighten the rhesus infants, they ran to the second, fluffy surrogate for comfort.

Maternal surrogates: A secure base from which to explore

In subsequent experiments, Harlow (1958) showed that the fluffy surrogate acted as a secure base from which rhesus infants could explore an unfamiliar environment or objects. In these experiments, the infants, along with their fluffy surrogates, were placed in an unfamiliar environment like a new cage.

These infants would explore the environment and return to the surrogate for comfort if startled. In contrast, when the infants were placed in the new environment without a surrogate, they would not explore but rather lie on the floor, paralyzed, rocking back and forth, sucking their thumbs.

The absence of a maternal surrogate

Harlow also studied the development of rhesus monkeys that were not exposed to a fluffy surrogate or had no surrogate at all. The outcome for these infants was extremely negative. Rhesus infants raised with a milk-supplying metal surrogate had softer feces than infants raised with a milk-supplying fluffy surrogate.

Harlow posited that the infants with the metal surrogates suffered from psychological disturbances, which manifested in digestive problems.

Rhesus infants raised with no surrogates showed the same fearful behavior when placed in an unfamiliar environment as described above, except that their behavior persisted even when a surrogate was placed in the environment with them. They also demonstrated less exploratory behavior and less curiosity than infants raised with surrogates from a younger age.

When these infants were approximately a year old, they were introduced to a surrogate. In response, they behaved fearfully and violently. They would rock continuously, scream, and attempt to escape their cages. Fortunately, these behaviors dissipated after a few days. The infants approached, explored, and clung to the surrogate, but never to the same extent as infants raised with a fluffy surrogate from a younger age.

Primary drives are ones that ensure a creature’s survival, such as the need for food or water. Harlow suggests that there is another drive, ‘contact comfort,’ which the fluffy surrogate satisfied.

The ‘contact comfort’ drive does more than just satisfy a need for love and comfort. From Harlow’s experiments, it seems that these fluffy surrogates offered a secure, comforting base from which infants felt confident enough to explore unfamiliar environments and objects, and to cope with scary sounds.

Conclusions from Harlow’s work were limited to the role of maternal surrogates because the surrogates also provided milk – a function that only female mammals can perform. Consequently, it was posited that human infants have a strong need to form an attachment to a maternal caregiver (Bowlby, 1951). However, subsequent research has shown that human infants do not only form an attachment with:

• a female caregiver,
• a caregiver that produces milk, or
• one caregiver (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964).

The bond between human infant and caregiver is not limited to only mothers, but can extend to anyone who spends time with the infant. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) studied the emotional responses of 60 infants to better understand their attachments and behaviors.

They found that at the start of the study, most of the infants had formed an attachment with a single person, normally the mother (71%), and that just over a third of the infants had formed attachments to multiple people, sometimes over five.

However, when the infants were 18 months, only 13% had an attachment to a single person, and most of the infants had two or more attachments. The other people with whom infants formed an attachment included:

• Grandparents
• Siblings and family members
• People who were not part of their family, including neighbors or other children

Download 3 Free Positive Relationships Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients to build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

Download 3 Positive Relationships Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Harlow’s experiment on rhesus monkeys shed light on the importance of the relationship between caregiver and infant. This relationship satisfies other needs besides food and thirst, and the behavior of rhesus infants differs depending on whether they were raised (1) with or without a surrogate and (2) whether that surrogate was a fluffy (i.e., comforting) or metal (i.e., non-comforting) one.

Widespread thinking at the time was that children only needed their physical needs to be satisfied in order to grow up into healthy, well-adjusted adults (Bowlby, 1951, 1958). Harlow’s work, however, suggests that the caregiver satisfies another need of the infant: the need for love.

It is difficult to know whether the infant monkeys truly loved the surrogate mothers because Harlow could not ask them directly or measure the feeling of love using equipment.

But there is no doubt that the presence (or absence) of a surrogate mother deeply affected the behavior of the infant monkeys, and monkeys with surrogate mothers displayed more normal behavior than those without.

Additionally, Harlow’s work also showed that infant monkeys looked for comfort in the fluffy surrogate mother, even if that surrogate mother never provided food.

From this research, we can conclude that infants feel an attachment toward their caregiver. That attachment is experienced as what we know to be ‘love.’ This attachment seems to be important for a variety of reasons, such as:

• Feeling safe when afraid or in an unfamiliar environment
• Responding in a loving, comforting way to the needs and feelings of infants

The infant’s need to form an attachment was not considered a primary need until 1952, when Bowlby argued that this basic need was one that infants feel instinctually (Bowlby & World Health Organization, 1952).

Bowlby’s work formed the basis of attachment theory – the theory that the relationship between infant and caregiver affects the infant’s psychological development.

The contributions from these researchers include:

• The emotional needs of infants are critical to healthy development and survival
• Parents play an important role besides merely satisfying the physical needs of an infant to ensure survival

Maternal deprivation

John Bowlby (1958) argued that maternal deprivation has extremely negative effects on the psychological and emotional development of children.

He was especially interested in extreme forms of parental deprivation, such as children who were homeless, abandoned, or institutionalized and therefore had no contact with their parents.

From his research, Bowlby argued that satisfying the physiological needs of the child did not ensure healthy development and that the effects of maternal deprivation were grave and difficult to reverse.

Specifically, he argued that how the caregiver behaves in response to the behavior and feelings of an infant plays an important role in infants’ psychological and emotional development (Bowlby, 1958).

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Attachment styles in infants

How the caregiver responds to the infant is known as sensitive responsiveness (Ainsworth et al., 1978). The fluffy surrogate mothers in Harlow’s experiment were not responsive, obviously; however, their presence, the material used to cover them, and their shape allowed the rhesus infants to cling to them, providing comfort, albeit a basic, unresponsive one.

The findings from research by Harlow and Bowlby led to pioneering work by Mary Ainsworth on infant–mother attachments and attachment theory in infants. Specifically, she developed an alternative method to study child–parent attachments, using the ‘strange situation procedure’:

• The parent and child are placed together in an unfamiliar room.
• At some point, a (female) stranger enters the room, chats to the parent and plays with/chats to the infant.
• The parent leaves the room, and the child and stranger are alone together.
• The parent returns to the room, and the stranger leaves. The parent chats and plays with the child.
• The parent leaves the room, and the child is alone.
• The stranger returns and tries to chat and play with the child.

Depending on how the child behaved at the separation and introduction of the parent and the stranger, respectively, the attachment style between the infant and mother was classified as either secure, anxious-avoidant, or anxious-resistant.

For more reading on Mary Ainsworth, Harlow, and Bowlby, you can find out more about their work in our What is Attachment Theory? article.

Harlow’s studies on dependency in monkeys – Michael Baker

Subsequent research has questioned some of Harlow’s original findings and theories (Rutter, 1979). Some of these criticisms include:

• Harlow’s emphasis on the importance of a single, maternal figure in the child–parent relationship. As mentioned earlier, children can develop important relationships with different caregivers who do not need to be female/maternal figures (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964).
• The difference between a bond and an attachment. Children can form attachments without forming bonds. For example, a child might follow a teacher (i.e., an example of attachment behavior) and yet not have any deep bonds or relationships with other children. This suggests that these two types of relationships might be slightly different or governed by different processes.
• Other factors can also influence the relationship between child and parent, and their attachment. One such factor is the temperament of the parent or the child (Sroufe, 1985). For example, an anxious parent or child might show behavior that suggests an insecure attachment style.  Another factor is that behaviors that suggest attachment do not necessarily mean that the parent is better responding to the child’s needs. For example, children are more likely to follow a parent when in an unfamiliar environment. This behavior does not automatically imply that the child’s behavior is a result of the way the parent has responded in the past; instead, this is just how children behave.

One of Harlow’s most controversial claims was that peers were an adequate substitute for maternal figures. Specifically, he argued that monkeys that were raised with other similarly aged monkeys behaved the same as monkeys that were raised with their parents. In other words, the relationship with a parent is not unique, and peers can meet these ‘parental’ needs.

However, subsequent research showed that rhesus monkeys raised with peers were shyer, explored less, and occupied lower roles in monkey hierarchies (Suomi, 2008; Bastian, Sponberg, Suomi, & Higley, 2002).

Importantly, Harlow’s experiments are not evidence that there should be no separation between parent and infant. Such a scenario would be almost impossible in a normal environment today. Frequent separations between parent and infant are normal; however, it is critical that the infant can re-establish contact with the parent.

If contact is successfully re-established, then the bond between parent and child is reinforced.

Impact on psychological theories about human behavior

Harlow’s research on rhesus monkeys demonstrated the important role that parents have in our development and that humans have other salient needs that must be met to achieve happiness.

Harlow’s work added weight to the arguments put forward by Sigmund Freud (2003) that our relationship with our parents can affect our psychological development and behavior later in our lives.

Harlow’s work also influenced research on human needs. For example, Maslow (1943) argued that humans have a hierarchy of needs that must be met in order to experience life satisfaction  and happiness.

The first tier comprises physiological needs, such as hunger and thirst, followed by the second tier of needs such as having a secure place to live. The third tier describes feelings of love and belonging, such as having emotional bonds with other people. Maslow argued that self-actualization could only be reached when all of our needs were met.

Harlow continued to perform experiments on rhesus monkeys, including studying the effects of partial to complete social deprivation. It is highly unlikely that Harlow’s experiments would pass the rigorous requirements of any ethics committee today. The separation of an infant from their parent, especially intending to study the effect of this separation, would be considered cruel.

Kobak (2012) outlines the experiments performed by Harlow, and it is immediately obvious that many of these animals experienced severe emotional distress because of their living conditions.

In the partial isolation experiments, Harlow isolated a group of 56 monkeys from other monkeys; although they could hear and see the other monkeys, they were prevented from interacting with or touching them. These monkeys developed aggressive and severely disturbed behavior, such as staring into space, repetitive behaviors, and self-harm through chewing and tearing at their flesh.

Furthermore, the monkeys that were raised in isolation did not display normal mating behavior and failed in mating.

The complete social deprivation experiments were especially cruel. In these experiments, they raised the monkeys in a box, alone, with no sensory contact with other monkeys. They never saw, heard, or came into contact with any other monkeys.

The only contact that they had was with a human experimenter, but this was through a one-way screen and remote control; there was no visual input of another living creature.

Harlow described this experience as the ‘pit of despair.’ Monkeys raised in this condition for two years showed severely disturbed behavior, unable to interact with other monkeys, and efforts to reverse the effect of two years in isolation were unsuccessful.

Harlow considered this experiment as an analogy of what happens to children completely deprived of any social contact for the first few years of their lives.

The effects of Harlow’s experiments were not limited to only one generation of monkeys. In one of his studies, a set of rhesus monkeys raised with surrogates, rather than their own mothers, gave birth to their own infants.

Harlow observed that these parent-monkeys, which he termed ‘motherless monkeys,’ were dysfunctional parents. They either ignored their offspring or were extremely aggressive toward them. They raised two generations of monkeys to test the effect of parental deprivation.

17 Exercises for Positive, Fulfilling Relationships

Empower others with the skills to cultivate fulfilling, rewarding relationships and enhance their social wellbeing with these 17 Positive Relationships Exercises [PDF].

Created by experts. 100% Science-based.

On a more positive note, you will find many tools at PositivePsychology.com to improve your client’s relationships. For example, Create a Connection Ritual can teach partners to develop meaningful daily rituals to improve communication.

Together, partners commit to participating in the behaviors that form each ritual. By actively engaging and reflecting on these behaviors, the bond is strengthened.

A second useful tool, appropriate for any relationship, is Blueprint For Love .

Your client can begin to understand what a loving relationship looks like to their partner, potentially making it easier for them to recognize what upsets or frustrates them. The aim of the exercise is to identify things that they could do more, or less of, in their relationship to strengthen it.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others build healthy relationships, this collection contains 17 validated positive relationships tools for practitioners. Use them to help others form healthier, more nurturing, and life-enriching relationships.

Harlow’s monkey experiments were cruel, but it would have been impossible to conduct the same experiments using human infants.

Furthermore, Harlow’s experiments helped shift attention to the important role that caregivers provide for children.

When Harlow was publishing his research, the medical fraternity believed that meeting the physical needs of children was enough to ensure a healthy child. In other words, if the child is fed, has water, and is kept warm and clean, then the child will develop into a healthy adult.

Harlow’s experiments showed that this advice was not true and that the emotional needs of infants are critical to healthy development.

With love, affection, and comfort, infants can develop into healthy adults.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free .

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation . Erlbaum.
• Bastian, M. L., Sponberg, A. C., Suomi, S. J., & Higley, J. D. (2002). Long-term effects of infant rearing condition on the acquisition of dominance rank in juvenile and adult rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Developmental Psychobiology , 42 , 44–51.
• Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health . Columbia University Press.
• Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis , 39 , 350–373.
• Bowlby, J., & World Health Organization. (1952). Maternal care and mental health: A report prepared on behalf of the World Health Organization as a contribution to the United Nations programme for the welfare of homeless children . World Health Organization.
• Colman, M. A. (2001). Oxford dictionary of psychology . Oxford University Press.
• Freud, S. (2003). An outline of psychoanalysis . Penguin UK.
• Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist , 13 (12), 673.
• Kobak, R. (2012). Attachment and early social deprivation: Revisiting Harlow’s monkey studies. Developmental psychology: Revisiting the classic studies , S , 10–23.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 50 (4), 370–96.
• Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972–1978: New findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Development , 50 (2), 283–305.
• Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 29 (3), 1–77.
• Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child Development , 56 (1), 1–14.
• Suomi, S. J. (2008). Attachment in rhesus monkeys. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 173–191). Guilford Press.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Parental attunement and attention also shape the architecture of the brain and the function of the nervous system. When a child does not encounter sufficient parental attunement, compassion, kindness, and empathy, they are deprived of experiences that foster the integration of the brain. This results in a dysregulated nervous system, which cannot produce regulated emotions, thoughts, behaviors, relationships, or bodily systems. The impeded integration causes internal distress, the symptoms of which include chronic illness, recurrent pain, poor relationships, and “mental health” conditions (which are health conditions).

The child (and subsequently insufficiently supported adult) tries to find relief through whatever means are available: numbing, acting out, withdrawing, overeating, substance abuse, dissociation, splitting, self-harm, etc. These are not “disorders” but *survival adaptations* demanded by the unsafe environment. The child/adult uses whatever survival adaptations are available; when they have better options, they use them.

When the dysregulated person receives sufficient psychosocial support, such as through truly therapeutic or other integrative relationships, the brain can integrate and the nervous system can regulate. People, like animals and plants, flourish in supportive environments. Fix the environment and the symptoms fade.

References cited, but not listed

If you scroll to the very end of the article, you will find a button that you can click to reveal the reference list.

Hope this helps!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Anxious Attachment Style: What It Is (+ Its Hidden Strengths)

In the realm of human relationships, attachment styles shape our perceptions of intimacy and emotional fulfillment. Anxious attachment style, a type of insecure attachment characterized [...]

Secure Attachment Style: Why It Matters & How to Nurture It

Imagine a relationship where trust flows effortlessly, communication is a breeze, and both partners feel equally cherished, respected, and free. Welcome to the world of [...]

Managing Chronic Loneliness When Aging: 23 Strategies

Chronic loneliness can affect us all at any point in our lifetimes, but it can be a significant challenge for many older adults as they [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Positive Relationships Exercises Pack

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Harry Harlow and the Nature of Affection

What Harlow's Infamous Monkey Mother Experiments Revealed

• Love and Affection
• Harry Harlow's Research on Love
• Wire Mother Experiment
• Fear and Security

Impact of Harry Harlow’s Research

Frequently asked questions.

Harry Harlow was one of the first psychologists to scientifically investigate the nature of human love and affection. Through a series of controversial monkey mother experiments, Harlow was able to demonstrate the importance of early attachments, affection, and emotional bonds in the course of healthy development.

This article discusses his famous monkey mother experiments and what the results revealed. It also explores why Harlow's monkey experiments are so unethical and controversial.

Early Research On Love

During the first half of the 20th century, many psychologists believed that showing affection towards children was merely a sentimental gesture that served no real purpose. According to many thinkers of the day, affection would only spread diseases and lead to adult psychological problems.

"When you are tempted to pet your child, remember that mother love is a dangerous instrument," the behaviorist John B. Watson once even went so far as to warn parents.

Psychologists were motivated to prove their field as a rigorous science. The behaviorist movement dominated the field of psychology during this time. This approach urged researchers to study only observable and measurable behaviors.

An American psychologist named Harry Harlow , however, became interested in studying a topic that was not so easy to quantify and measure—love. In a series of controversial experiments conducted during the 1960s, Harlow demonstrated the powerful effects of love and in particular, the absence of love.   

His work demonstrated the devastating effects of deprivation on young rhesus monkeys. Harlow's research revealed the importance of a caregiver's love for healthy childhood development.

Harlow's experiments were often unethical and shockingly cruel , yet they uncovered fundamental truths that have influenced our understanding of child development.

Harry Harlow's Research on Love

Harlow noted that very little attention had been devoted to the experimental research of love. At the time, most observations were largely philosophical and anecdotal.

"Because of the dearth of experimentation, theories about the fundamental nature of affection have evolved at the level of observation, intuition, and discerning guesswork, whether these have been proposed by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, physicians, or psychoanalysts ," he noted.

Many of the existing theories of love centered on the idea that the earliest attachment between a mother and child was merely a means for the child to obtain food, relieve thirst, and avoid pain. Harlow, however, believed that this behavioral view of mother-child attachments was an inadequate explanation.

The Monkey Mother Experiment

His most famous experiment involved giving young rhesus monkeys a choice between two different "mothers." One was made of soft terrycloth but provided no food. The other was made of wire but provided nourishment from an attached baby bottle.

Harlow removed young monkeys from their natural mothers a few hours after birth and left them to be "raised" by these mother surrogates. The experiment demonstrated that the baby monkeys spent significantly more time with their cloth mother than with their wire mother.

In other words, the infant monkeys went to the wire mother only for food but preferred to spend their time with the soft, comforting cloth mother when they were not eating.

Based on these findings, Harry Harlow concluded that affection was the primary force behind the need for closeness.

Harry Harlow's Further Research

Later research demonstrated that young monkeys would also turn to their cloth surrogate mother for comfort and security. Such work revealed that affectionate bonds were critical for development.

Harlow utilized a "strange situation" technique similar to the one created by attachment researcher Mary Ainsworth . Young monkeys were allowed to explore a room either in the presence of their surrogate mother or in her absence.

Monkeys who were with their cloth mother would use her as a secure base to explore the room. When the surrogate mothers were removed from the room, the effects were dramatic. The young monkeys no longer had their secure base for exploration and would often freeze up, crouch, rock, scream, and cry.

Harry Harlow’s experiments offered irrefutable proof that love is vital for normal childhood development . Additional experiments by Harlow revealed the long-term devastation caused by deprivation, leading to profound psychological and emotional distress and even death.

Harlow’s work, as well as important research by psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, helped influence key changes in how orphanages, adoption agencies, social services groups, and childcare providers approached the care of children.

Harlow's work led to acclaim and generated a wealth of research on love, affection, and interpersonal relationships. However, his own personal life was marked by conflict.

After the terminal illness of his wife, he became engulfed by alcohol misuse and depression, eventually becoming estranged from his own children. Colleagues frequently described him as sarcastic, mean-spirited, misanthropic, chauvinistic, and cruel.

While he was treated for depression and eventually returned to work, his interests shifted following the death of his wife. He no longer focused on maternal attachment and instead developed an interest in depression and isolation.

Despite the turmoil that marked his later personal life, Harlow's enduring legacy reinforced the importance of emotional support, affection, and love in the development of children.

A Word From Verywell

Harry Harlow's work was controversial in his own time and continues to draw criticism today. While such experiments present major ethical dilemmas, his work helped inspire a shift in the way that we think about children and development and helped researchers better understand both the nature and importance of love.

Harlow's research demonstrated the importance of love and affection, specifically contact comfort, for healthy childhood development. His research demonstrated that children become attached to caregivers that provide warmth and love, and that this love is not simply based on providing nourishment. 

Harlow's monkey mother experiment was unethical because of the treatment of the infant monkeys. The original monkey mother experiments were unnecessarily cruel. The infant monkeys were deprived of maternal care and social contact.

In later experiments, Harlow kept monkeys in total isolation in what he himself dubbed a "pit of despair." While the experiments provided insight into the importance of comfort contact for early childhood development, the research was cruel and unethical.

Hu TY, Li J, Jia H, Xie X. Helping others, warming yourself: altruistic behaviors increase warmth feelings of the ambient environment . Front Psychol . 2016;7:1349. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01349

Suomi SJ. Risk, resilience, and gene-environment interplay in primates . J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry . 2011;20(4):289-297.

Zhang B. Consequences of early adverse rearing experience(EARE) on development: insights from non-human primate studies . Zool Res . 2017;38(1):7-35. doi:10.13918/j.issn.2095-8137.2017.002

Harlow HF. The nature of love .  American Psychologist. 1958;13(12):673-685. doi:10.1037/h0047884

Hong YR, Park JS. Impact of attachment, temperament and parenting on human development . Korean J Pediatr . 2012;55(12):449-454. doi:10.3345/kjp.2012.55.12.449

Blum D. Love at Goon Park . New York: Perseus Publishing; 2011.

Ottaviani J, Meconis D. Wire Mothers: Harry Harlow and the Science of Love . Ann Arbor, MI: G.T. Labs; 2007.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Shopping Cart

Articles & Insights

Expand your mind and be inspired with Achology's paradigm-shifting articles. All inspired by the world's greatest minds!

Unveiling Human Attachment: Insights from Harlow’s Monkey Experiments

By declan fitzpatrick, this article is divided into the following sections:.

The Harlow Monkey Experiments, conducted in the 1950s and 1960s by psychologist Harry Harlow, revolutionized our understanding of attachment and developmental psychology. Through a series of groundbreaking studies involving rhesus monkeys, Harlow challenged prevailing notions about the nature of love and the importance of maternal bonding.

By examining the methodology, findings, and implications of the Harlow Monkey Experiments, we can gain profound insights into the essential role of emotional and social connections in early development.

Methodology and Design

Harry Harlow’s experiments aimed to investigate the significance of caregiving and companionship in the cognitive and social growth of primates. He constructed surrogate mothers using wire and cloth, allowing him to isolate and analyze the factors contributing to attachment. Infant rhesus monkeys were separated from their biological mothers shortly after birth and placed in cages with two surrogate mothers—one made of wire that provided food and one covered in soft cloth that offered no nourishment. This setup enabled Harlow to observe the monkeys’ preferences and behaviors in choosing between comfort and sustenance.

Through meticulously designed experiments, Harlow observed how the infant monkeys interacted with the surrogates. He introduced various stressors to assess the monkeys’ responses and their reliance on the surrogate mothers for comfort and security. These controlled conditions allowed for a detailed examination of the emotional bonds formed between the infants and their surrogate caregivers.

Key Findings

The findings of the Harlow Monkey Experiments were both surprising and enlightening. Contrary to the dominant belief that attachment was primarily driven by the provision of food, Harlow discovered that the infant monkeys overwhelmingly preferred the cloth surrogate over the wire one, even when the latter provided nourishment. This preference for tactile comfort highlighted the critical role of contact comfort in the formation of attachment bonds.

Harlow’s experiments demonstrated that the need for affection and emotional security outweighed the basic need for food. The monkeys turned to the cloth surrogate when frightened or stressed, seeking solace and reassurance. These behaviors underscored the importance of a nurturing and comforting presence in fostering healthy psychological development.

Emotional and Social Implications

The implications of the Harlow Monkey Experiments extended beyond the realm of animal behavior, offering profound insights into human development as well. Harlow’s research challenged the then-prevalent behaviorist view that attachment was solely based on conditioned responses related to feeding. Instead, his findings emphasized the intrinsic need for warmth, comfort, and emotional connection in the development of secure and healthy attachments.

The experiments revealed that deprivation of meaningful social and emotional interaction had detrimental effects on the monkeys’ overall well-being. Monkeys raised with only the wire surrogate exhibited signs of severe emotional distress, social withdrawal, and abnormal behaviors. These findings drew attention to the potential consequences of neglect and lack of emotional support in human children, emphasizing the necessity of nurturing environments for optimal development.

Ethical Considerations

Despite its groundbreaking contributions, the Harlow Monkey Experiments have been scrutinized for their ethical implications. The experiments involved significant psychological and emotional distress for the infant monkeys, raising concerns about the moral treatment of animals in research. The isolation and deprivation experienced by the monkeys led to long-term negative outcomes, prompting debates about the ethical boundaries of experimental psychology.

In response to these concerns, the field of psychology has since established stricter ethical guidelines to ensure the humane treatment of animals in research. These guidelines emphasize the importance of minimizing harm and distress, promoting welfare, and considering alternative methods whenever possible. Harlow’s work, while controversial, played a role in shaping the ethical standards that govern contemporary psychological research.

Broader Societal Impact

The Harlow Monkey Experiments had a significant impact on various fields, including psychology, pediatrics, and child development. The insights gained from these studies prompted a reevaluation of childcare practices, highlighting the vital importance of emotional bonding and physical affection in early childhood. Harlow’s research influenced policies and practices related to parenting, adoption, and early childhood education, emphasizing the need for responsive and nurturing caregiving.

The findings also resonated within the context of hospital care for infants and children. Prior to Harlow’s work, institutionalized children often received minimal physical affection, leading to adverse developmental outcomes. The Harlow Monkey Experiments underscored the necessity of providing emotional and social support, shaping guidelines for more humane and effective caregiving practices.

Theoretical Contributions

Harlow’s research contributed to the theoretical framework of attachment theory, which was further developed by psychologists such as John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth . Attachment theory posits that early relationships with caregivers form the foundation for future social and emotional development. Harlow’s empirical evidence supported Bowlby’s concept of the “secure base,” where a nurturing caregiver provides a sense of safety and security, allowing the child to explore and engage with the world confidently.

The Harlow Monkey Experiments illustrated the profound impact of early attachment experiences on later behavior, validating the notion that secure attachments foster resilience and healthy psychological functioning. These findings continue to inform therapeutic approaches, particularly in addressing attachment disorders and trauma in children and adolescents.

The Harlow Monkey Experiments represent a landmark in the study of attachment and developmental psychology. Through his innovative and, at times, controversial research, Harry Harlow unveiled the fundamental importance of emotional and social bonds in early development. The experiments challenged conventional wisdom, demonstrating that the need for comfort and security profoundly shapes attachment behaviors.

While the ethical considerations surrounding the Harlow Monkey Experiments highlight the complex balance between scientific discovery and moral responsibility, the insights gained have had lasting implications. Harlow’s work has influenced childcare practices, theoretical frameworks, and therapeutic interventions, underscoring the critical role of nurturing and affectionate caregiving in fostering healthy development.

As we reflect on the legacy of the Harlow Monkey Experiments, it is clear our quest for understanding human attachment continues to evolve. By building on Harlow’s research and adhering to ethical standards, we can further our knowledge of the intricate interplay between emotional connections and psychological well-being, ultimately enhancing the lives of individuals and communities.

Browse Achology Quotes:

► Book Recommendation of the Month

The ultimate life coaching handbook by kain ramsay.

A Comprehensive Guide to the Methodology, Principles and practice of Life Coaching

Misconceptions and industry shortcomings make life coaching frequently misunderstood, as many so-called coaches fail to achieve real results. The lack of wise guidance further fuels this widespread skepticism and distrust.

Get updates from the Academy of Modern Applied Psychology

About Achology

Useful links, our policies, our 7 schools, connect with us, © 2024 achology.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

The Harlow Monkey Experiment

Nov 28, 2023

The Harlow Monkey Experiment, conducted by psychologist Harry Harlow in 1958, was a groundbreaking study that investigated the importance of maternal care and social relationships in primate development.

Aim : The Harlow Monkey Experiment aimed to explore the effects of maternal separation and social isolation on infant monkeys’ psychological and social development.

Method : In the experiment, infant monkeys were separated from their biological mothers shortly after birth and raised in isolation or with surrogate “mothers” made of wire or cloth. The monkeys’ behavior and development were observed and compared to assess the impact of different caregiving conditions on their well-being.

Results : The experiment revealed that infant monkeys raised in isolation or with the wire surrogate mothers exhibited abnormal behaviors, such as self-injury and social withdrawal. In contrast, monkeys raised with the cloth surrogate mothers, despite lacking biological nourishment, displayed more normal social behaviors and developed healthier emotional attachments.

Factors identified : The Harlow Monkey Experiment highlighted the critical role of social relationships, particularly maternal care and physical contact, in primate development. It underscored the importance of emotional warmth and social interaction in fostering healthy psychological functioning.

Conclusion : The findings of the Harlow Monkey Experiment have had profound implications for our understanding of attachment theory and the importance of early social experiences in shaping individuals’ emotional and social development. The experiment demonstrated the detrimental effects of social deprivation and underscored the importance of caregiving quality in promoting well-being.

Criticisms : The Harlow Monkey Experiment has faced criticism for its ethical implications, particularly regarding the treatment of the infant monkeys and the potential for psychological harm. Critics argue that the experiment’s benefits may not have justified the suffering experienced by the animals.

Legacy : Despite ethical concerns, the Harlow Monkey Experiment remains a landmark study in developmental psychology, influencing research on attachment, social development, and the effects of early adversity on later outcomes. It has contributed to our understanding of the profound impact of early experiences on individuals’ lifelong well-being.

Harry Harlow with the mother surrogates he used to raise infant monkeys. The terry cloth mother is pictured above. The bare wire mother appears below. Given a choice, infant monkeys invariably preferred surrogate mothers covered with soft terry cloth, and they spent a great deal of time cuddling with them (above), just as they would have with their real mothers (below).   The famous experiments that psychologist Harry Harlow conducted in the 1950s on maternal deprivation in rhesus monkeys were landmarks not only in primatology, but in the evolving science of attachment and loss. Harlow himself repeatedly compared his experimental subjects to children and press reports universally treated his findings as major statements about love and development in human beings. These monkey love experiments had powerful implications for any and all separations of mothers and infants, including adoption, as well as childrearing in general. In his University of Wisconsin laboratory, Harlow probed the nature of love, aiming to illuminate its first causes and mechanisms in the relationships formed between infants and mothers. First, he showed that mother love was emotional rather than physiological, substantiating the adoption-friendly theory that continuity of care—“nurture”—was a far more determining factor in healthy psychological development than “nature.” Second, he showed that capacity for attachment was closely associated with critical periods in early life, after which it was difficult or impossible to compensate for the loss of initial emotional security. The critical period thesis confirmed the wisdom of placing infants with adoptive parents as shortly after birth as possible. Harlow’s work provided experimental evidence for prioritizing psychological over biological parenthood while underlining the developmental risks of adopting children beyond infancy. It normalized and pathologized adoption at the same time. How did Harlow go about constructing his science of love? He separated infant monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth, then arranged for the young animals to be “raised” by two kinds of surrogate monkey mother machines, both equipped to dispense milk. One mother was made out of bare wire mesh. The other was a wire mother covered with soft terry cloth. Harlow’s first observation was that monkeys who had a choice of mothers spent far more time clinging to the terry cloth surrogates, even when their physical nourishment came from bottles mounted on the bare wire mothers. This suggested that infant love was no simple response to the satisfaction of physiological needs. Attachment was not primarily about hunger or thirst. It could not be reduced to nursing. Then Harlow modified his experiment and made a second important observation. When he separated the infants into two groups and gave them no choice between the two types of mothers, all the monkeys drank equal amounts and grew physically at the same rate. But the similarities ended there. Monkeys who had soft, tactile contact with their terry cloth mothers behaved quite differently than monkeys whose mothers were made out of cold, hard wire. Harlow hypothesized that members of the first group benefitted from a psychological resource—emotional attachment—unavailable to members of the second. By providing reassurance and security to infants, cuddling kept normal development on track. What exactly did Harlow see that convinced him emotional attachment made a decisive developmental difference? When the experimental subjects were frightened by strange, loud objects, such as teddy bears beating drums, monkeys raised by terry cloth surrogates made bodily contact with their mothers, rubbed against them, and eventually calmed down. Harlow theorized that they used their mothers as a “psychological base of operations,” allowing them to remain playful and inquisitive after the initial fright had subsided. In contrast, monkeys raised by wire mesh surrogates did not retreat to their mothers when scared. Instead, they threw themselves on the floor, clutched themselves, rocked back and forth, and screamed in terror. These activities closely resembled the behaviors of autistic and deprived children frequently observed in institutions as well as the pathological behavior of adults confined to mental institutions, Harlow noted. The awesome power of attachment and loss over mental health and illness could hardly have been performed more dramatically. In subsequent experiments, Harlow’s monkeys proved that “better late than never” was not a slogan applicable to attachment. When Harlow placed his subjects in total isolation for the first eights months of life, denying them contact with other infants or with either type of surrogate mother, they were permanently damaged. Harlow and his colleagues repeated these experiments, subjecting infant monkeys to varied periods of motherlessness. They concluded that the impact of early maternal deprivation could be reversed in monkeys only if it had lasted less than 90 days, and estimated that the equivalent for humans was six months. After these critical periods, no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the monkeys’ abnormal behaviors and make up for the emotional damage that had already occurred. emotional bonds were first established was the key to they could be established at all. For experimentalists like Harlow, only developmental theories verified under controlled laboratory conditions deserved to be called scientific. Harlow was no . He criticized psychoanalysis for speculating on the basis of faulty memories, assuming that adult disorders necessarily originated in childhood experiences, and interpreting too literally the significance of breast-feeding. Yet Harlow’s data confirmed the well known psychoanalytic emphasis on the mother-child relationship at the dawn of life, and his research reflected the repudiation of and the triumph of therapeutic approaches already well underway throughout the human sciences and clinical professions by midcentury. Along with child analysts and researchers, including and René Spitz, Harry Harlow’s experiments added scientific legitimacy to two powerful arguments: against institutional child care and in favor of psychological parenthood. Both suggested that the permanence associated with adoption was far superior to other arrangements when it came to safeguarding the future mental and emotional well-being of children in need of parents. of this page by Boris Kozlow] | | | | | | | Site designed by:   Department of History, University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1288 (541) 346-3699 E-mail: © Ellen Herman Inside The Controversial Story Of Harry Harlow, The Psychologist Who Studied Maternal Love By Experimenting On Monkeys In the mid-20th century, harry harlow conducted cruel experiments on baby rhesus monkeys to prove that the bond between mother and child went far beyond the need for food.. University of Wisconsin-Madison Harry Harlow with one of the rhesus monkeys and its surrogate cloth “mother.” Harry Harlow was fascinated with the idea of love. Specifically, he wanted to explore how infants develop loving connections with their families. And he did so with a number of controversial experiments involving baby rhesus monkeys and surrogate “mothers” made of cloth or wire. At the time, most scientists believed that infants were motivated to form connections with their mothers out of a need for food. Some psychologists even counseled that parents should not comfort or hold their children too much because it would make them become dependent adults. But Harlow’s experiments revealed the opposite — when given a choice between a “wire” mother with milk, and a “cloth” mother without any food, the baby monkeys chose to cling to the cloth mother. What’s more, Harlow showed that babies living in isolation failed to develop social skills. Harlow’s experiments were controversial and cruel, but they demonstrated an important truth about the infants’ need for touch, love, and comfort. How Harry Israel Became Harry Harlow Born on Oct. 31, 1905, as Harry Israel, Harlow grew up in Fairfield, Iowa, with his parents and three brothers. According to his biographer, Deborah Blum, who wrote Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the Science of Affection , Harlow was a bright, if bored child, whose lonely early years were largely defined by an illness suffered by his brother, Delmer. “I have no memory of partial maternal separation, but I may have lost some percentage of maternal affection,” Harlow later wrote of Delmer’s illness, according to Blum. “[T]his deprivation may have resulted in consuming adolescent and adult loneliness.” A capable student when he put his mind to it, Harlow finished 13th out of his class of 71 and outscored all his classmates in an aptitude test designed by the University of Iowa. Yet he had little ambition beyond being “famous,” according to his yearbook — and secretly feared he’d end up “insane.” Instead, Harry Harlow ended up at Stanford University in California in 1924. After struggling as an English major, he switched to psychology and spent six years as an undergraduate and then a graduate student, studying under great minds like Lewis Terman, the developer of the Stanford-Binet IQ test. In fact, it was Terman who suggested Harlow change his name from “Israel” to avoid the suggestion that he was Jewish. “Terman chose Harlow for me,” Harlow later wrote, “and as far as I know, I am the only scientists who has ever been named by his major professor.” After graduating in 1930, Harry Harlow found a faculty job at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. And, there, he would develop his famous — and controversial — experiment with baby rhesus monkeys. Recent News Meet Kerri Rawson, The BTK Killer’s Daughter Who Never Suspected A Thing By All That's Interesting The Wire Vs. Cotton Mother Experiments Harry Harlow/Public Domain A baby rhesus monkey curls at the feet of its “cloth” mother, ignoring its “wire” mother. For more than 20 years, Harry Harlow toiled at the University of Wisconsin in relative obscurity. But in 1957, he began an experiment with baby rhesus monkeys that would make him famous — and infamous. According to The New York Times , most scientists at the time agreed that babies’ connections with their mothers was based on food. As such, many prominent psychologists advised parents not to cuddle their children or respond to their cries because it would make them overly dependent. “When you are tempted to pet your child, remember that mother love is a dangerous instrument,” the behaviorist John B. Watson even said. But Harry Harlow and others, according to the Association for Psychological Science , questioned this logic. To explore the question further, Harlow began a series of experiments with infant rhesus monkeys in his Wisconsin lab. First, Harlow conducted an experiment in which he raised some infant monkeys in complete isolation. According to the Association for Psychological Science, the isolated monkeys hurt themselves, paced in their cages, and stared blankly. When introduced to others, they didn’t know how to interact — and some stopped eating and died. Creative Touch Imaging Ltd./NurPhoto via Getty Images A rhesus monkey in the wild holding its baby, contact which Harlow established is important. Significantly, they also clung nervously to their cloth diapers, which led Harlow to develop the next phase of his study. In this experiment, Harlow took baby monkeys and placed them with two surrogate “mothers,” one made of wire, and one made of a soft cloth. Sometimes, the wire mother had a milk bottle, and sometimes the cloth mother did. But no matter what, Harlow found that the baby monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother. When the wire mother had milk, the babies approached it to feed, then returned to the cloth mother. According to PBS , when the cloth mother had milk, the babies ignored the wire mother. What’s more, the mere presence of a surrogate mother gave the babies more confidence. When placed in a new environment with the surrogate, the monkey would explore. When placed without the surrogate, the monkey would cower in fear, scream, and cry. Harlow also tested how having a peer group might affect baby monkeys. He found that monkeys that grew up with peers and a mother interacted easily with others. Monkeys with cloth mothers did too — but it took more time. However, monkeys with a mother but no peers were fearful and aggressive, and monkeys with neither had no social skills at all. So, what exactly did Harry Harlow’s experiments establish? Harry Harlow’s Legacy Today In his experiments with baby rhesus monkeys, Harry Harlow disproved the scientists of his day who believed that physical contact was unimportant and that babies connect with their mothers out of a desire to survive. Instead, he established the concept of “contact comfort.” With enough contact comfort, Harlow’s experiments suggested, human infants would grow up to be well-adjusted members of society. Without it, they would be fearful, aggressive, and socially inept. Ironically, Harlow often struggled to develop stable relationships in his own life. He had two failed marriages (though he remarried his first wife after his second wife died) and, according to Very Well Mind , could be “sarcastic, mean-spirited, misanthropic, chauvinistic, and cruel.” Plus, his experiments are seen today by some as highly controversial and unethical. By removing the baby rhesus monkeys from their mothers, often placing them in isolation, Harlow inflicted deep, psychological pain on his subjects. But Harry Harlow likely saw his work as essential in order to better understand one of life’s most powerful emotions. “Love is a wondrous state, deep, tender, and rewarding,” he said when he presented his work at the 66th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in August 1958. Arguing that love was “a motive which pervades our entire lives,” Harlow added: “Because of its intimate and personal nature, it is regarded by some as an improper topic for experimental research. But, whatever our personal feelings may be, our assigned mission as psychologists is to analyze all facets of human and animal behavior into their component variables.” His experiments with rhesus monkeys were controversial. But they also compellingly showed how love — or its absence — can shape our lives. After reading about Harry Harlow and his experiments with rhesus monkeys, learn about the Jim twins who were separated at birth but lived uncannily similar lives. Or, go inside the study that suggested that monkeys are better problem-solvers than humans. PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091 Harlow’s Monkey Experiment (Definition + Contribution to Psychology) Not all experiments in psychology involve humans; nevertheless, those utilizing animals often aim to shed light on human behavior. Harlow's Monkey experiments had a significant impact on psychology, and despite being considered controversial, they remain influential to this day. What Are Harlow’s Monkey Experiments? Harlow's Monkey experiments looked at the influence of parental guidance and interaction during early development. Infant monkeys were placed in isolation, away from their mothers. In other experiments, he took infant monkeys away from their mothers but placed them in a cage with “surrogate” mothers. In both sets of experiments, he found that the monkeys displayed a specific set of behaviors as a response to their unusual upbringing. Psychology Before Harlow's Monkey Experiments Harry Harlow, the man behind the monkey experiments, was a psychologist in the first half of the 20th century. At the time, some conflicting ideas were going around about parenting styles. Early behaviorists didn’t think parents should be so cuddly. Watson told parents that lots of physical affection would slow down their development. For years, psychology students were taught that B.F. Skinner’s daughter was subject to the behaviorist’s experiments, and she went crazy after being isolated in a glass box for the first year of her life. Skinner said that she was raised just fine in isolation. (Skinner’s daughter refutes some rumors in a Guardian article .) As time went on, psychoanalysts like Freud theorized that a child’s development was stunted if the mother didn’t provide love and attention in the first year of the child’s life. If a child experienced trauma during this year, they would develop an oral fixation. After all, getting fed was the most important experience in the first year of a child’s life. There were a lot of different ideas on how to raise a child. And it makes sense that most parents wanted to do the “right” thing. So psychologists started to build experiments to test some of these theories. Harry Harlow was one of them. But rather than studying children, he studied rhesus monkeys. His experiments were very different from a lot of psychologists at the time. He wanted to focus on the impact of love and basic physiological needs. What Happened During Harlow's Monkey Experiments? The monkeys in isolation were separated from other monkeys for 3-12 months. During that time, some would display behaviors to possibly “self-soothe.” Others would self-mutilate. They would circle anxiously and appear to be distressed. Harlow also studied what happened when these monkeys were placed back in the company of other monkeys. The results were slightly disturbing. They continued to self-mutilate. They couldn’t integrate themselves into society. These isolated monkeys were scared, aggressive, or dumbfounded. Some of the monkeys died after they stopped eating. Harlow noted that the longer the monkeys stayed in isolation, the harder it was for them to integrate into society. Monkeys With Wire or Cloth Mothers So the monkeys were negatively affected by isolation. But Harlow wanted to go further. Why were the monkeys impacted so significantly? Was it solely because of physiological factors, or did love and affection play a role? To answer these questions, Harlow set up another experiment. He took the infant monkeys away from their mothers and placed them in a cage with two “surrogate” mothers. One of these surrogate mothers was made out of wire. The other was made out of cloth. In some cages, the wire mother had food for the monkeys. The cloth mother did not. In other cases, the cloth mother had food for the monkeys. The wire mother did not. Harlow observed that no matter which surrogate mother held the food, the infants would spend more time with the comforting cloth mother. If only the wire mother had food, the monkeys would only go to them when hungry. Otherwise, they would stay in the comfort of the cloth mother. This doesn’t mean that the monkeys were fully developed socially. When these monkeys were placed back into cages with other monkeys, they didn’t integrate well. They were shy, didn’t stand up for themselves if bullied, and had trouble mating. The monkeys that did become mothers also had trouble raising their monkeys. Harlow believed these behaviors resulted from the events in their infancy. Attachment Theory and Harlow's Monkey Experiments Suppose you have ever read anything from relationship experts or counselors. In that case, you might hear this idea: our relationship with our parents influences the partners we pick and the way we go about relationships. Many psychologists have shared variations of this idea. Some of these variations are cringe-worthy, and some are quite helpful. One variation of this idea is Attachment Theory . This theory describes four different types of attachments that we develop based on our relationship with our parents. We bring this attachment style (secure, anxious, etc.) into adult relationships. Attachment Theory was the product of studies conducted by John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. However, their studies are not the only ones influencing how we view attachment formation. One set of experiments, Harlow’s Monkey experiments, played a role in influencing how we view attachment. Due to the unethical nature of this experiment, it’s not always discussed in a psychology class or discussions about relationships. Controversy and Other Studies on Attachment If you think, “Those poor monkeys!” you’re not alone. Many people believed that Harlow’s experiments were unethical. Why would you subject live animals to an experiment that would ultimately traumatize them? Remember, some of these monkeys died early due to starvation caused by anxious behaviors. Did those monkeys need to die for the good of science? While some say yes, others say no. Not all studies on attachment took such harsh measures. For example, John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth observed parents and children as parents left the room for a few minutes at a time. You can learn more about these studies, and the Attachment Styles developed as a result of these studies in another video. Despite the controversy surrounding his experiments, Harlow did positively impact the world of psychology and parenting. The risks he took for studying love and care, when those topics weren’t discussed in psychology, paid off. His work showed the importance of love and affection. Caregivers, parents, and guardians took note. If your parents or grandparents showed you love and affection as a child, you can thank the research of Harry Harlow and other psychologists who studied Attachment and development. Related posts: Dreams Of Monkeys Meaning (12 Reasons + Interpretation) Attachment Styles Theory (Free Test) John Bowlby Biography - Contributions To Psychology Mary Ainsworth (Biography) Golden Child Syndrome (Definition + Examples) Reference this article: About The Author Free Personality Test Free Memory Test Free IQ Test PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Follow Us On: Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter Psychology Resources Developmental Personality Relationships Psychologists Serial Killers Psychology Tests Personality Quiz Memory Test Depression test Type A/B Personality Test © PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Harlow's Monkey An unapologetic look at transracial and transnational adoption, why “harlow’s monkey”. In the 1950’s, psychologist Harry Harlow began a series of experiments on baby monkeys, depriving them of their biological mothers and using substitute wire and terry cloth covered “mothers”. Harlow’s goal was to study the nature of attachment and how it affects monkeys who were deprived of their mothers early in life. As an unwitting participant in the human form of Harlow’s monkey experiment, known as trans-racial or trans-cultural adoption, I am constantly seeking to expand my knowledge and understanding of the life-long ramifications of these types of social experiments. According to the State Department, in 2005, over 21,500 children immigrated to the United States for the purpose of adoption, the majority of these children left their native homeland, language, customs, foods and religions for a middle-class, white, American home. The majority of these children also come from a country in which they were part of the racial hegemeny, only to now be part of a racial minority. This blog was born in March of 2006 as a way to put down my thoughts about international and transracial adoption from a point of view that is often missing – the adoptee themselves. As a social worker in the field of adoptions, and having spent a lot of time volunteering or working with adoptees, and having the benefit of a social work education, I wanted to connect-the-gaps in what I saw as an adoptive parent and adoption professional dominant discourse around adoption. Part 2: Why I named the blog Harlow’s Monkey Since this is hot-button item, I thought it was time to discuss the subject of Harlow and his monkey experiments in a little more depth, and the reason why I chose this name for my blog. Keep in mind that I am not an expert on Harlow or his science; I just found that there are a lot of parallels between Harlow’s experiments and adoption and Harlow was attempting to learn about the nature of attachment and what happens when infant monkeys are removed from their mothers. I am far from being creative or unique in choosing to name my blog, Harlow’s Monkey . Many others before me have made the connection to adoption. Harlow himself compared the baby monkeys in his experiments to human children and aimed to study how maternal deprivation and love and attachment influenced human beings. Harlow’s famous monkey experiment hinged on the question of whether infant monkeys removed from their mothers would respond to substitute wire monkey “mothers” that provided food (physical needs) over terry-cloth covered wire “mothers” without food (comfort). Harlow’s results found that these infant monkeys would cling to and respond to the soft, fabric covered monkeys over the plain wire “mothers” with food, thus  showing that nurturing and the need for affection were greater than the need for food. Harlow studied this concept in a second phase of his experiment. He separated the baby monkeys into two groups; one with the terry cloth mother, one with the wire mother. Both groups of monkeys ate the same amount but the behaviors of the wire monkey babies were markedly different than the cloth monkey babies. Especially important to note is that those monkeys who had the cloth-covered “mothers” were able to calm themselves better when frightened with stimuli; they also hadquicker resolutions after being frightened to base-level behavior. The wire-covered monkey babies, however, had great difficulty when frightened. They did not go to their mother; instead, they would screech, rock back and forth or throw themselves on the floor. Harlow’s experiments showed us that attachment and bonding is more important to the infant monkey than just providing for physical needs. That is, we want to develop in our children the next few steps on the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; what I’ve called socialization (family, friends, community – in other words, a sense of belonging); self esteem and self-actualization. According to Harlow’s own words ( Love in Infant Monkeys, Scientific American 200, June 1959 ): Thus all the objective tests we have been able to devise agree in showing that the infant monkey’s relationship to its surrogate mother is a full one. Comparison with the behavior of infant monkeys raised by their real mothers confirms this view. Like our experimental monkeys, these infants spend many hours a day clinging to their mothers, and run to them for comfort or reassurance when they are frightened. The deep and abiding bond between mother and child appears to be essentially thesame, whether the mother is real or a cloth  surrogate. . . . The depth and persistence of attachment to the mother depend not only on the kind of stimuli that the young animal receives but also on when it receives them. . . . Clinical experience with human beings indicates that people who have been deprived of affection in infancy may have difficulty forming affectional ties in later life. From preliminary experiments with our monkeys we have also found that their affectional responses develop, or fail to develop, according to a similar pattern. In naming my blog Harlow’s Monkey , I was not aiming to “diss” my parents. Harlow’s Monkey was named to illustrate the broader issues that I see in adoption. Whether it’s “harsh” or not, the truth is that for those of us who were adopted, we are being raised by “substitute” parents. Just as we children are often substitute children for our parents, especially those of us who were adopted as a result of our parents’ infertility. But as Harlow’s experiments clearly show, it is the quality of the comfort and the ability to meet our emotional needs that is important and not just the ability to feed, clothe and shelter us. Which is an important consideration when thinking about things such as home studies. Home studies and foster care licenses were once based more on the ability of the parents to provide the shelter and safety requirements for a child. We now know that it takes much more; the ability of the parent to provide emotional comfort and care. This is especially important to me because when we think about transracial adoption and international adoption, we social workers look at the home study and see that yes, this parent or these parents can meet the physical and safety needs of a child; and they seem warm and caring too. But without an ability to provide for our emotional and psychological comfort around our racial and cultural needs , we are left alone like Harlow’s rhesus monkeys and their wire-only mothers. Do I think that I am part of a large, social experiment? You bet. Just like Harlow’s rhesus monkeys, we transracially and internationally adopted persons have been poked and prodded and been the focus of many evaluations and studies in order to see whether it “works” – that is, are we psychologically all right after being removed from our families and communities of color into mostly white, middle- to upper-class families? How are we transracial and international adoptees faring, considering that the current federal legislation in the United States prohibits considering the cultural and racial needs of a child? Harry Harlow didn’t walk into his lab, conduct his experiments on one baby monkey, then call it a day. He repeated his experiments, like good scientists do, in order to achieve some amount of reliability and validity in his results. On a micro level, I am just my parents’ daughter, sister to my siblings, auntie to my nieces and nephew, grandchild and cousin. But I am also part of a macro system of children who were born under circumstances that led to my being placed in a substitute home. Over 200,000 of us from Korea alone. When people focus on individual cases, one (or two) parent(s) and one child, it’s easy to forget the larger societal patterns that happen as a result. We are talking about diasporas and migrations. We are talking about displacement and traumas. I am not “dissing” my parents, because they did what they were advised to do by their social workers and adoption agency. They raised me as as if I was a white child born to them, just like my siblings. It is the larger, societal issues, such as the philosophy of the times that advised social workers 20 years ago to raise their children like “white, biological children” that trouble me. Harlow’s Monkey is my way of lifting the micro-level veil over our eyes and examining the macro- and global issues around the practice of adoption. For more on Harry Harlow, check out  The Adoption History Project – Harry Harlow For more on Harry Harlow and his monkey experiments, see: The Nature of Love and Wikipedia’s entry on Harry Harlow . Share this: Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now. Subscribe Subscribed Copy shortlink Report this content View post in Reader Manage subscriptions Collapse this bar Harlow’s Monkey Experiment – The Bond between Babies and Mothers Harry Harlow was an American psychologist whose studies were focused on the effects of maternal separation, dependency, and social isolation on both mental and social development. Objective of the Harlow’s Monkey Experiment The idea came to Harlow when he was developing the Wisconsin General Testing Apparatus or the WGTA to study the mental processes of primates, which include memory, cognition and learning. As he developed his tests, he realized that the monkeys he worked with were slowly learning how to develop strategies around his tests. Harlow had the idea that infant monkeys who are separated from their mothers at a very early age (within 90 days) can easily cope with a surrogate, because the bond with the biological mother has not yet been established. Furthermore, he also wanted to learn whether the bond is established because of pure nourishment of needs (milk), or if it involves other factors. How did the Harlow’s Monkey Experiment work? Results of the harlow monkey experiment. Furthermore, the results of the second experiment showed that while the baby monkeys in both groups consumed the same amount of milk from their “mother”, the babies who grew up with the terry cloth mother exhibited emotional attachment and what is considered as normal behaviour when presented with stressful variables. Whenever they felt threatened, they would stay close to the terry cloth mother and cuddle with it until they were calm. Significance of the Harlow’s Monkey Experiment Moreover, it was found that the establishment of bond between baby and mother is not purely dependent on the satisfaction of one’s physiological needs (warmth, safety, food) , but also emotional (acceptance, love, affection). Leave a Reply Cancel reply svg]:fill-accent-900"> These 1950s experiments showed us the trauma of parent-child separation. Now experts say they’re too unethical to repeat—even on monkeys. By Eleanor Cummins Posted on Jun 22, 2018 7:00 PM EDT John Gluck’s excitement about studying parent-child separation quickly soured. He’d been thrilled to arrive at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the late 1960s, his spot in the lab of renowned behavioral psychologist Harry Harlow secure. Harlow had cemented his legacy more than a decade earlier when his experiments showed the devastating effects of broken parent-child bonds in rhesus monkeys. As a graduate student researcher, Gluck would use Harlow’s monkey colony to study the impact of such disruption on intellectual ability. Gluck found academic success, and stayed in touch with Harlow long after graduation. His mentor even sent Gluck monkeys to use in his own laboratory. But in the three years Gluck spent with Harlow—and the subsequent three decades he spent as a leading animal researcher in his own right—his concern for the well-being of his former test subjects overshadowed his enthusiasm for animal research. Separating parent and child, he’d decided, produced effects too cruel to inflict on monkeys. Since the 1990s, Gluck’s focus has been on bioethics; he’s written research papers and even a book about the ramifications of conducting research on primates. Along the way, he has argued that continued lab experiments testing the effects of separation on monkeys are unethical. Many of his peers, from biology to psychology, agree. And while the rationale for discontinuing such testing has many factors, one reason stands out. The fundamental questions we had about parent-child separation, Gluck says, were answered long ago. The first insights into attachment theory began with studious observations on the part of clinicians. Starting in the 1910s and peaking in the 1930s, doctors and psychologists actively advised parents against hugging , kissing, or cuddling children on the assumption such fawning attention would condition children to behave in a manner that was weak, codependent, and unbecoming. This theory of “behaviorism” was derived from research like Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning research on dogs and the work of Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner , who believed free will to be an illusion. Applied in the context of the family unit, this research seemed to suggest that forceful detachment on the part of ma and pa were essential ingredients in creating a strong, independent future adult. Parents were simply there to provide structure and essentials like food. But after the end of World War II, doctors began to push back. In 1946, Dr. Benjamin Spock (no relation to Dr. Spock of Star Trek ) authored Baby and Child Care, the international bestseller, which sold 50 million copies in Spock’s lifetime. The book, which was based on his professional observation of parent-child relationships, advised against the behaviorist theories of the day. Instead, Spock implored parents to see their children as individuals in need of customized care—and plenty of physical affection. At the same time, the British psychiatrist John Bowlby was commissioned to write the World Health Organization’s Maternal Care and Mental Health report. Bowlby had gained renowned before the war for his systematic study of the effects of institutionalization on children, from long-term hospital stays to childhoods confined to orphanages. Published in 1951, Bowlby’s lengthy two-part document focused on the mental health of homeless children. In it, he brought together anecdotal reports and descriptive statistics to paint a portrait of the disastrous effects of the separation of children from their caretakers and the consequences of “deprivation” on both the body and mind. “Partial deprivation brings in its train acute anxiety, excessive need for love, powerful feelings of revenge, and, arising from these last, guilt and depression,” Bowlby wrote. Like Spock, this research countered behaviorist theories that structure and sustenance were all a child needed. Orphans were certainly fed, but in most cases they lacked love. The consequences, Bowlby argued, were dire—and long-lasting. The evidence of the near-sanctity of parent-child attachment was growing thanks to the careful observation of experts like Spock and Bowlby. Still, many experts felt one crucial piece of evidence was missing: experimental data. Since the Enlightenment, scientists have worked to refine their methodology in the hopes of producing the most robust observations about the natural world. In the late 1800s, randomized, controlled trials were developed and in the 20th century came to be seen as the “gold standard” for research —a conviction that more or less continues to this day. While Bowlby had clinically-derived data, he knew to advance his ideas in the wider world he would need data from a lab . But by 1947, the scientific establishment required informed consent for research participants (though notable cases like the Tuskegee syphilis study violated such rules into at least the 1970s). As a result, no one would condone forcibly separating parents and children for research purposes. Fortunately, Bowlby’s transatlantic correspondent, Harry Harlow, had another idea. Over the course of his career, Harlow conducted countless studies of primate behavior and published more than 300 research papers and books. Unsurprisingly, in a 2002 ranking the impact of 20th century psychologists , the American Psychological Association named him the 26th most cited researcher of the era, below B.F. Skinner (1), but above Noam Chomsky (38). But the (ethically-fraught) experiments that cemented his status in Psychology 101 textbooks for good began in earnest only in the 1950s. Around the time Bowlby published WHO report, Harlow began to push the psychological limits of monkeys in myriad ways—all in the name of science. He surgically altered their brains or beamed radiation through their skulls to cause lesions, and then watched the neurological effect, according to a 1997 paper by Gluck that spans history, biography, and ethics. He forced some animals to live in a “deep, wedge-shaped, stainless steel chambers… graphically called the ‘pit of despair'” in order to study the effect of such solitary confinement on the mind, Gluck wrote. But Harlow’s most well-known study, begun in the 1950s and carefully documented in pictures and videos made available to the public, centered around milk. To test the truth of the behaviorist’s claims that things like food mattered more than affection, Harlow set up an experiment that allowed baby monkeys, forcibly separated from their mothers at birth, to choose between two fake surrogates. One known as the “iron maiden” was made only of wire, but had bottles full of milk protruding from its metal chest. The other was covered in a soft cloth, but entirely devoid of food. If behaviorists were right, babies should choose the surrogate who offered them food over the surrogate who offered them nothing but comfort. As Spock or Bowlby may have predicted, this was far from the case. “Results demonstrated that the monkeys overwhelmingly preferred to maintain physical contact with the soft mothers,” Gluck wrote. “It also was shown that the monkeys seemed to derive a form of emotional security by the very presence of the soft surrogate that lasted for years, and they ‘screamed their distress’ in ‘abject terror’ when the surrogate mothers were removed from them.” They visited the iron maiden when they were too hungry to avoid her metallic frame any longer. As anyone in behavioral psychology will tell you, Harlow’s monkey studies are still considered foundational for the field of parent-child research to this day. But his work is not without controversy. In fact, it never has been. Even when Harlow was conducting his research, some of his peers criticized the experiments , which they considered to be cruel to the animal and degrading to the scientists who executed them. The chorus of dissenting voices is not new; it’s merely grown. Animal research today is more carefully regulated by individual institutions, professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and legislation like the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Many activists and scholars argue research on primates should end entirely and that experiments like Harlow’s should never be repeated. “Academics should be on the front lines of condemning such work as well, for they represent a betrayal of the basic notions of dignity and decency we should all be upholding in our research, especially in the case of vulnerable populations in our samples—such as helpless animals or young children,” psychologist Azadeh Aalai wrote in Psychology Today . Animal studies have not disappeared. Research on attachment in monkeys continues at the University of Wisconsin at Madison . But animal studies have declined. New methods—or, depending on how you look at it, old methods—have filled the void. Natural experiments and epidemiological studies, similar to the kind Bowlby employed, have added new insight into the importance of “tender age” attachment . Romanian orphanages established after the fall of the Soviet Union have served as such a study site. The facilities, which have been described as “slaughterhouses of the soul” , have historically had great disparities between the number of children and the number of caregivers (25 or more kids to one adult), meaning few if any children received the physical or emotional care they needed. Many of the children who were raised in these environments have exhibited mental health and behavioral disorders as a result. It’s even had a physical effect, with neurological research showing a dramatic reduction in the literal size of their brains and low levels of brain activity as measured by electroencephalography, or EEG, machines. Similarly, epidemiological research has tracked the trajectories of children in the foster care system in the United States and parts of Europe to see how they differ, on average, from youths in a more traditional home environment. They’ve shown that the risk of mental disorders , suicidal ideation and attempts , and obesity are elevated among these children. Many of these health outcomes appear to be even worse among children in an institutional setting , like a Romanian orphanage, than children placed in foster care, which typically offers kids more individualized attention. Scientists rarely say no to more data. After all, the more observations and perspectives we have, the better we understand a given topic. But alternatives to animal models are under development and epidemiological methodologies are only growing stronger. As a result, we may be able to set some kinds of data—that data collected at the expense of humans or animal —aside. When it comes to lab experiments on parent-child attachment, we may know everything we need to know—and have for more than 60 years. Gluck believes that testing attachment theory at the expense of primates should have ended with Harry Harlow. And he continues to hope people will come to see the irony inherent in harming animals to prove, scientifically, that human children deserve compassion. “Whether it is called mother-infant separation, social deprivation, or the more pleasant sounding ‘nursery rearing,'” Gluck wrote in a New York Times op-ed in 2016, “these manipulations cause such drastic damage across many behavioral and physiological systems that the work should not be repeated.” They Took Babies Away from Their Mothers Crazy Animal Experimentation Through History History's Most Brutal Human Experiments The Disturbing Stanford Prison Experiment The Most Evil Experiments by the US Govt Creating Utopia in America Scientists Who Paid with Their Lives The 'Little Albert' Experiment Japanese WWII Unit 731 WWII Japanese Experiments on US Airmen Using Orphaned Babies to Train Expecting Moms The Contained Attempts at Biosphere 2 Barbaric Studies on Human Beings The Horrific Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments Could You Have Become a Nazi? Yes, Probably Disgusting Experiments on Human Beings Attempts to Create a Frankenstein Crazy Medical Experiments That Worked Experiments on Unknowing US Soldiers An Experiment Took Monkeys Away From Their Mothers To Prove, Scientifically, That Love Exists You may have heard of Harry Harlow's Monkey Love Experiment. The American psychologist is famous for his research on rhesus monkeys and the effect that maternal contact has on developmental growth. Harlow's monkeys were critical to his research and social isolation experiments. While Harlow and his team came up with some interesting conclusions, their work had critics. Some thought his experiments were almost as inhumane as the Stanford Prison Experiment . Harlow separated infant monkeys from their biological mothers to observe their attachment behaviors with surrogate mothers made out of metal and cloth. The monkeys were exposed to the surrogates in varying degrees. Harlow and his team also isolated the primates for different periods of time to measure their psychological development. Unsurprisingly, the longer the monkeys were separated from their surrogates or other infants, the more problems they experienced. As a result of Harlow's  psychological findings , the researchers determined that infants bond with their mothers for more than just food and safety. There are also emotional variables that link them together. His research helped boost support for adoption in the nature vs. nurture argument, concluding that love and affection were necessities for a healthy child. Harry Harlow Wikimedia Commons Public domain Harlow's Monkey Love Experiments Proved The Importance Of Motherly Affection American psychologist Harry F. Harlow set out to examine how rhesus monkeys behaved when separated from their mothers. He wanted to determine how instrumental maternal contact and companionship were to a young primate's development, both socially and mentally. Harlow performed various experiments to see how the monkeys' attitudes and demeanor were affected when they were removed from their mothers and placed into isolating environments. He filmed their responses. Harlow Separated Infant Monkeys From Their Mothers Hours After Birth Harlow removed infant monkeys from their biological mothers just hours after they were born. Initially, the babies were split between two types of surrogate mother machines. One was made of mesh wire and the other was made of wood covered in soft terrycloth. Each surrogate was the same size . Typically, both types of surrogate mothers were capable of nourishing the monkeys with milk, but in some experiments only the wire mothers dispensed milk. Harlow Didn't Believe That The Infant Monkeys Would Have Issues With Surrogate Mothers Harlow was convinced that baby monkeys under the age of three months who were taken from their biological mothers would have little difficulty adjusting to their fake mothers. He didn't believe the mother/child bond occurred within the first 90 days of life. He wanted to prove that love for the mother was based on emotional needs, not physiological factors. Harlow also aimed to find out if the bond between a mother and child was dependent solely on the mother being a food source or whether other factors contributed to their connection. The Infant Monkeys Preferred The Cloth Mothers Even When The Wire Ones Provided Milk Both types of surrogate mothers were capable of nourishing the monkeys with milk. Harlow discovered that monkeys who could choose between the two surrogates preferred the terrycloth mothers, even when milk was solely provided by the wire mothers. The experiment revealed that the mother/infant bond was not predicated by nourishment. One Baby Monkey Spent Up To 18 Hours A Day On The Cloth Mother And Less Than One Hour Feeding On The Wire One Video from one of Harlow's experiments shows a baby monkey, dubbed 106, being released into a cage that features both a wire and terrycloth mother. The monkey first goes to the wire mother for milk and then hurries over to the terrycloth mother for comfort. Harlow notes: He's back on the cloth mother, and he'll stay on the cloth mother. Actually, this baby spends 17 to 18 hours a day on the cloth mother and less than one hour a day on the wire mother. Baby Monkeys Who Had Wire Surrogates Struggled To Cope In Threatening Situations In another experiment , the infant monkeys from both groups were given the same amount of milk from their respective surrogate mothers, whether wire or terrycloth. Both groups  of monkeys grew at the same rate physically. Their psychological growth, however, was different. Those with terrycloth mothers who were put in stressful situations reacted normally and  attached themselves to their mothers to gain reassurance. If they were scared, they would cuddle with their terrycloth mothers for comfort. In contrast, monkeys raised by wire mesh mothers had problems coping with threatening situations. They would slam themselves onto the floor, scream, and attempt to sooth themselves by rocking back and forth. They did not seek out their wire mothers for comfort. Psychology , Psychology Experiments Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey Experiments: Monkeying Around With Love Have You Ever? You’re helping your uncle Brian watch his children at an aquarium. A fire alarm goes off, and scares your youngest cousin Cordelia. Cordelia runs from your side to her father and tightly clasps his leg. She’s on the verge of tears. You’re not quite confident she fully understands Brian’s explanation of the fire alarm, but you don’t stick around to find out, instead seeking out the two middle schoolers who are already heading towards the nearest exit. By the time you’ve reconvened outside, Cordelia seems much more calm and is happily picking at the grass while you all wait for the all-clear from the fire department. When scared, Cordelia sought comfort from her father rather than you, even though you were closer. She has a stronger attachment to Brian, so she sought him out. Once she had received some contact comfort from him, she was able to go back to playing and having fun.  Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey Experiments  Harlow’s experiments provided empirical proof that primary attachment bonds are vital to a developing creature. Contact comfort plays a much more important role in the mother-child relationship than sustenance does. Furthermore, there’s a time limit for when such bonds need to be forged without causing permanent emotional, mental, and social issues.  The Experiment In the 1930s, Harlow was running experiments with rhesus macaques concerning learning development. To this end, he chose to raise them in a nursery setting rather than with their mothers. While Harlow and his associates could care for the physical needs of the baby monkeys, there was no denying that they regularly behaved much differently than those raised by their mothers. These socially isolated infants were reclusive, clung to their cloth diapers, and often showed signs of fear or aggressiveness. These observations, along with the later growing general debate over a mother’s role in her child’s development, would inspire Harlow to conduct his famous experiments. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, Harlow investigated the attachment bonds we call love with his rhesus monkeys as test subjects. His most famous experiment involved separating an infant from its mother a few hours after birth and letting it be “raised” by two “surrogate mothers.” The two mothers were made out of wire and wood, but one had a soft cloth covering. In one group, only the cloth mother had a bottle attached to it. For the other, only the wire mother provided the baby sustenance. According to the prevailing beliefs of the time, the infant should have shown an attachment for whichever mother held the bottle, but this wasn’t the case. In all groups, the infants overwhelmingly preferred the cloth mother. Those with the nourishing wire mother would only approach it to feed and then return to their cloth mother. Later experiments - “open-field tests” and “fear tests” - showed that when frightened, infants would seek comfort from their cloth mothers, clinging to them and eventually calming down. Those without their surrogate mother or those with only a wire mother present would stay fearful, frequently huddling in a ball, rocking themselves, sucking their thumbs, or screeching in terror. Harlow also investigated how different lengths of isolation affected rhesus macaques’ abilities to socialize with peers. Subjects were isolated for months and even years. He found that 90 days was the critical period. Subjects exhibited dramatic, debilitating behavior but, when integrated with controls of the same age, slowly started to adapt and eventually show normal behavior. After the critical period passes, no amount of exposure to surrogate mothers or peers can cause the subjects to fully alter their behavior nor make up for the emotional damage suffered. The longer subjects were isolated, the more debilitating their behavior became. In some cases, severely isolated subjects developed emotional anorexia upon reintegration with their peers and subsequently died. The idea of comfort contact isn’t a radical one today, but it was during the time of Harlow’s experiments. There were a number of records and instances of human children developing poorly socially, emotionally, and psychologically as a result of what appeared to be a lack of parental attachments, but there was no hard proof. The popular opinion of the day was that parents should only care for their children’s physical needs. Cuddling was on par with coddling and was believed to cause children to become too dependent. Harlow provided the necessary evidence to dispute such beliefs via his experiments. Institutionalized child care was shown to be detrimental to children. This is why in issues of guardian rights, the child’s preferences should be prioritized over which adult can provide the most financially. Adoption is championed as superior over other arrangements because it provides the permanence needed for attachment bonds to develop. Harlow showed that love doesn’t develop from simply caring for the physical needs of a child: it comes from providing a feeling of safety and comfort. A father can play just as critical of a role in his child’s development as the mother. You don’t need to be a biological parent to truly care for a child. An infant raised by guardians rather than their biological mother is not guaranteed to suffer from such an arrangement. Harlow’s experiments showed that parenting and mentorship isn’t limited to adults. Peers can be instrumental in helping each other lead healthy, happy lives. People develop a variety of attachment bonds of varying strength and importance, but each bond plays an important role in their development. Your words and actions can help make others feel safe and wanted or strange and unnecessary. You can help heal others or further scar them. It’s entirely up to you, so which would you prefer to be: a cold lump of metal or a warm bundle of security? Think Further What are some other ways we seek comfort from others? Who are the people and what are the things you seek out when frightened? Why? How can we promote the development of healthy attachment bonds? Teacher Resources Sign up for our educators newsletter to learn about new content! Educators Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up Get updated about new videos! Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up Infographic This gave students an opportunity to watch a video to identify key factors in our judicial system, then even followed up with a brief research to demonstrate how this case, which is seemingly non-impactful on the contemporary student, connect to them in a meaningful way This is a great product. I have used it over and over again. It is well laid out and suits the needs of my students. I really appreciate all the time put into making this product and thank you for sharing. Appreciate this resource; adding it to my collection for use in AP US Government. I thoroughly enjoyed this lesson plan and so do my students. It is always nice when I don't have to write my own lesson plan Sign up to receive our monthly newsletter! Academy 4SC Educators 4SC Leaders 4SC Students 4SC Research 4SC Accountability 386 IMAGES Metal Monkey Sculpture Scrap Metal, Metal Art, Welding Ideas, White Harlow monkey experiment This harrowing lab treatment of monkeys calls for law change in the UK Experiment Harry Harlow: As there is love. Page 1 Monkey Metal Monkey Sculpture Monkey Figurine Horror Monkey Experiment Lab To Close After Outcry VIDEO Metal Monkey Machine The monkey experiment #darkpsychology #psychology குரங்கு பொம்மை இப்டி ஆச்சே 😱| monkey experiment The Monkey Experiment The Monkey Experiment: Questioning the Norms How Evolution Created the World’s Most Scientifically Confusing Monkey COMMENTS Harry Harlow Harry Harlow. Harry Frederick Harlow (October 31, 1905 - December 6, 1981) was an American psychologist best known for his maternal-separation, dependency needs, and social isolation experiments on rhesus monkeys, which manifested the importance of caregiving and companionship to social and cognitive development. Harry Harlow Monkey Experiments: Cloth Mother vs Wire Mother In Harlow's experiment, baby monkeys preferred a soft, cloth "mother" over a wire one, even when the wire "mother" provided food. This demonstrated the importance of comfort and affection in attachment, beyond just basic needs like nourishment. Harlow's Classic Studies Revealed the Importance of Maternal Contact Based on this observation, Harlow designed his now-famous surrogate mother experiment. In this study, Harlow took infant monkeys from their biological mothers and gave them two inanimate surrogate mothers: one was a simple construction of wire and wood, and the second was covered in foam rubber and soft terry cloth. Harlow's Monkey Experiments: 3 Findings About Attachment We briefly explore attachment theory by looking at Harlow's monkey experiments, and how those findings relate to human behavior & attachment styles. Pit of despair The pit of despair was a name used by American comparative psychologist Harry Harlow for a device he designed, technically called a vertical chamber apparatus, that he used in experiments on rhesus macaque monkeys at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the 1970s. [2] The aim of the research was to produce an animal model of depression. Harry Harlow and the Nature of Love and Affection Harry Harlow was one of the first psychologists to scientifically investigate the nature of human love and affection. Through a series of controversial monkey mother experiments, Harlow was able to demonstrate the importance of early attachments, affection, and emotional bonds in the course of healthy development. Unveiling Attachment: Insights from Harlow's Monkey Experiments The Harlow Monkey Experiments represent a landmark in the study of attachment and developmental psychology. Through his innovative and, at times, controversial research, Harry Harlow unveiled the fundamental importance of emotional and social bonds in early development. The experiments challenged conventional wisdom, demonstrating that the need ... Harlow's Monkeys (1958) Explained: Modern Therapy Harry Frederick Harlow (1905-1981) was an American psychologist best known for his maternal-separation, dependency needs, and social isolation experiments on rhesus monkeys. This has manifested the importance of caregiving and companionship to social and cognitive development. The Harlow Monkey Experiment The Harlow Monkey Experiment, conducted by psychologist Harry Harlow in 1958, was a groundbreaking study that investigated the importance of maternal care and social relationships in primate development. Aim: The Harlow Monkey Experiment aimed to explore the effects of maternal separation and social isolation on infant monkeys' psychological ... Adoption History: Harry Harlow, Monkey Love Experiments These monkey love experiments had powerful implications for any and all separations of mothers and infants, including adoption, as well as childrearing in general. In his University of Wisconsin laboratory, Harlow probed the nature of love, aiming to illuminate its first causes and mechanisms in the relationships formed between infants and ... How Harry Harlow Used Monkeys For Bizarre 'Love' Experiments In the mid-20th century, Harry Harlow conducted cruel experiments on baby rhesus monkeys to prove that the bond between mother and child went far beyond the need for food. University of Wisconsin-Madison Harry Harlow with one of the rhesus monkeys and its surrogate cloth "mother.". Harry Harlow was fascinated with the idea of love. Harlow's Studies on Dependency in Monkeys Harry Harlow shows that infant rhesus monkeys appear to form an affectional bond with soft, cloth surrogate mothers that offered no food but not with wire su... Harlow's Monkey Experiment (Definition Harlow's Monkey experiments looked at the influence of parental guidance and interaction during early development. Infant monkeys were placed in isolation, away from their mothers. In other experiments, he took infant monkeys away from their mothers but placed them in a cage with "surrogate" mothers. In both sets of experiments, he found ... Harry Harlow's pit of despair: Depression in monkeys and men Intrigued by the monkeys' behavior Harlow created his now world-famous surrogate monkey mothers made of cloth and put them next to surrogate mothers made of metal wire, the latter ones providing milk through a feeding bottle. Harlow's Famous Monkey Study: The Historical and Contemporary The study of monkeys by Harlow and Zimmermann (1959) and direct observation by Bowlby in orphanages suggests that infants needed emotional support with food and shelter (Radetzki et al., 2018). Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments: Monkeying Around With Love Harlow's experiments provided empirical proof that primary attachment bonds are vital to a developing creature. Contact comfort plays a much more important r... Harlow's Monkey Experiment & Attachment Theory Learn about Harry Harlow's monkey experiment, and theory of attachment. Also, learn how the Harry Harlow theory has influenced understanding of... Why "Harlow's Monkey?" Why "Harlow's Monkey?". In the 1950's, psychologist Harry Harlow began a series of experiments on baby monkeys, depriving them of their biological mothers and using substitute wire and terry cloth covered "mothers". Harlow's goal was to study the nature of attachment and how it affects monkeys who were deprived of their mothers ... Harlow's Monkey Experiment Harlow's Monkey experiment reinforced the importance of mother-and-child bonding. Harlow suggested that the same results apply to human babies - that the timing is critical when it comes to separating a child from his or her mother. Harlow believed that it is at 90 days for monkeys, and about 6 months for humans. These 1950s experiments showed us the trauma of parent-child separation Harlow's monkey experiments proved a pivotal turning point in animal research, scientific ethics, and our understanding of primate attachment. An Experiment Took Monkeys Away From Their Mothers To Prove ... Harlow separated infant monkeys from their biological mothers to observe their attachment behaviors with surrogate mothers made out of metal and cloth. The monkeys were exposed to the surrogates in varying degrees. Harlow and his team also isolated the primates for different periods of time to measure their psychological development. Unsurprisingly, the longer the monkeys were separated from ... Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments: Monkeying Around With Love Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments Harlow's experiments provided empirical proof that primary attachment bonds are vital to a developing creature. Contact comfort plays a much more important role in the mother-child relationship than sustenance does. Furthermore, there's a time limit for when such bonds need to be forged without causing permanent emotional, mental, and social issues. homework paper phd project resume review speech study thesis